Over the past year, the only cop in San Francisco assigned to investigate dog attacks has fielded hundreds of reports and referred dozens of them for prosecution. But the cases coming across Officer Greg Sutherland’s desk never saw their day in court because of a budget dispute that ended vicious and dangerous dog hearings last summer.

Now, after 10 months in the doghouse, it looks like canine court is close to getting back in session. The city announced on Thursday that it’s in the process of hiring an official to oversee the proceedings, which are expected to resume in July. When they do, the new officer will have a backlog of 66 cases to work through.

The announcement seems to resolve a yearslong debate over how to handle the quasi-judicial vicious and dangerous dog hearings, which abruptly stopped in July 2025 after the Department of Police Accountability said it could no longer afford to run them. 

“It’s such a relief,” said Sally Stephens, head of SFDOG (opens in new tab), a group that advocates for responsible dog ownership in the city. “We’ve been trying to raise this issue for months now, so we really look forward to getting this up and running again.”

Supervisor Stephen Sherrill took up the cause this year after several constituents complained about the lack of accountability for dangerous dogs and their owners. He brought the matter up at a Government Audit and Oversight Committee meeting on Thursday, where officials announced the soon-to-be-hired hearing officer and talked about how to prevent future lapses in dog court.

“There’s a real cost to not having these hearings,” Sherrill said. 

SF founded canine court in 2001 after a brutal dog attack claimed the life of a Pacific Heights lacrosse coach. The proceedings were placed under the purview of the San Francisco Police Department, the Department of Public Health, and San Francisco Animal Care and Control.

The Department of Police Accountability (DPA) stepped in after a 2018 civil grand jury report found issues with how the police and animal control departments were handling hearings, such as running afoul of due process and the city’s health code.

For the next several years, the DPA assigned a line attorney to serve as the de facto canine court judge. But the agency’s core mission of policing the police was taking up more and more time, and the city offered no additional funding to cover the added responsibility of canine court.

So, after months of warnings, DPA Executive Director Paul Henderson told the city he’d halt the hearings unless the city upped his budget. 

The last hearing was held in July 2025. And  it wasn’t the only lapse: The city also suspended dog court hearings for four months in 2024. 

Over the past year, animal control has fielded about 1,000 reports of dog attacks. Big dogs mauling smaller dogs. Dogs lunging at kids. Dogs biting and chasing bystanders. Dogs biting cops. 

SFPD’s one-man Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit investigated 462 of those cases in 2025 and 160 so far this year. Dog court hearings, meanwhile, dropped from 169 in 2017 to 32 in 2025 and none so far this year.

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood — who represents the Tenderloin, which also has the city’s highest concentration of children — said dogs are the main safety concern brought up by constituents. To address the problem, he said the Tenderloin police station launched a dog-enforcement operation last fall, calling it Paw Patrol after the popular cartoon. 

With dog attacks becoming more frequent, Mahmood said it’s important that the city “displays competency” with handling vicious and dangerous dog hearings. 

“We wouldn’t let our civil or criminal courts go dark for a year,” he said. 

The victims aren’t the only ones who have been left in limbo by the interruption. 

Mary Birchler and James Ingles, whose 50-pound rescue Ruby was deemed vicious and dangerous after attacking a smaller dog in October 2023, have been waiting more than a year for their chance to appeal. 

“We’re on the other side of this,” Birchler said, “where we’re in this stalemate in trying to go back to dog court to lift this dangerous-dog designation.”

Ruby’s conviction in dog court requires her to wear a basket muzzle in public, a red “dangerous dog” tag on her collar, and nothing longer than a 3-foot leash. It also requires Birchler and Ingles to post signs on their front and back doors that read, “Beware of vicious and dangerous dog.”

Her owners say they’ve paid their dues. They’ve put Ruby through intensive training. They know better than to take her to dog parks. They paid $15,000 to cover the smaller dog’s vet bills. And they shelled out thousands more in fees and fines imposed by animal control. 

“We’ve learned a lot, and we know what we’re doing,” Birchler said. “Ruby’s much better. When she sees another dog, she looks at us, and we give her a treat. She’s learning not to react. Along the way, we’ve been told by certain people to just take the muzzle off, take the sign down. But we want to make sure that we have the paperwork that makes it official, that says yes, she’s no longer dangerous.”

The new hearing officer, whose name has yet to be made public, will be funded by public health dollars, report to the DPA, and hold about three court sessions a week, according to Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Chief of Public Safety Steven Betz. The mayor’s office, meanwhile, will provide additional oversight to avoid future lapses. 

“The officer may change over time,” Betz said, “but a system will be in place.”